Home > Promising Practices

Promising Practices

The Promising Practices database informs professionals and community members about documented approaches to improving community health and quality of life.

The ultimate goal is to support the systematic adoption, implementation, and evaluation of successful programs, practices, and policy changes. The database provides carefully reviewed, documented, and ranked practices that range from good ideas to evidence-based practices.
Learn more about the ranking methodology.

Submit a Promising Practice

Search Filters Clear all
(2131 results)

Save a link to this search

Ranking
Featured
Primary Target Audience
Topics and Subtopics
Geographic Type
Search

California Votes Initiative (California)

Filed under Good Idea, Community / Civic Engagement, Adults, Racial/Ethnic Minorities

Goal: The Initiative's goal was to increase voter participation rates among infrequent voters, particularly in low-income and ethnic communities.

Cardiovascular Risk Management by Community Pharmacists (Iowa)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Prevention & Safety, Adults, Rural

Goal: The goal of the Cardiovascular Risk Management by Community Pharmacists program is to reduce cardiovascular risk factors through pharmacist provided case management.

CareMore: Nonemergency Medical Transport

Filed under Effective Practice, Health / Health Care Access & Quality, Older Adults

Goal: To provide transportation and improve patient satisfaction for nonemergency medical services.

Impact: CareMore's NEMT was so successful in the first 3 months, the programs were expanded in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Virginia.

CareSouth Carolina and the Northeastern Rural Health Network (South Carolina)

Filed under Effective Practice, Health / Mental Health & Mental Disorders, Adults, Rural

Goal: The goal of CareSouth Carolina and Northeastern Rural Health Network is to improve the behavioral health wellness of patients and residents.

Impact: The partnership between CareSouth Carolina and Northeastern Rural Health Network has reduced the stigma regarding mental health issues, improved care coordination, and increased the likelihood that patients receive the physical and mental health support they need in order to be healthy.

Carrera Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program (USA)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Adolescent Health, Teens, Urban

Goal: The Carrera Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program's goal is to provide comprehensive youth development services and reduce teen pregnancy among economically disadvantaged teenagers.

Impact: Pregnancy prevention programs can work successfully among females when started early in adolescence and when male counterparts are also educated appropriately on condom-use and delayed sexual actively onset.

CDC Communities Putting Prevention to Work: Increase Access to Cessation Services (Santa Clara County, CA)

Filed under Good Idea, Health / Alcohol & Drug Use, Racial/Ethnic Minorities

Goal: The goal is to increase cessation within communities with the highest tobacco use rates through culturally appropriate services provided through community-based organization partners.

Impact: The intervention has resulted in a 39% quit success rate.

CDC Communities Putting Prevention to Work: King County, WA (King County, WA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Health / Physical Activity, Children, Teens

Goal: The King County Communities Putting Prevention to Work initiative goals are to reduce obesity and tobacco use.

Impact: Communities Putting Prevention to Work in King County is associated with reducing obesity prevalence among students in participating school districts and has made substantial progress towards decreasing tobacco use.

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Client-Oriented Screening Interventions: Reducing Out-of-Pocket Costs: Colorectal Cancer (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Cancer, Adults

Goal: The goal of the interventions is to reduce client out-of-pocket costs to minimize or remove economic barriers that make it difficult for clients to access cancer screening services.

Impact: Consistently favorable results for interventions that reduce costs for breast cancer screening and several other preventive services suggest that such interventions are likely to be effective for increasing colorectal cancer screening as well.

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Decreasing Tobacco Use Among Workers: Smoke-Free Policies to Reduce Tobacco Use (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Alcohol & Drug Use, Adults

Impact: The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) recommends smoke-free policies to reduce secondhand smoke exposure and tobacco use on the basis of strong evidence of effectiveness. Evidence is considered strong based on results from studies that showed effectiveness of smoke‑free policies in:

Reducing exposure to secondhand smoke
Reducing the prevalence of tobacco use
Increasing the number of tobacco users who quit
Reducing the initiation of tobacco use among young people
Reducing tobacco-related morbidity and mortality, including acute cardiovascular events
Economic evidence indicates that smoke-free policies can reduce healthcare costs substantially. In addition, the evidence shows smoke-free policies do not have an adverse economic impact on businesses, including bars and restaurants.

An Effective Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success and/or promise in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures of improvement in outcome of interest (i.e. increase in voter registration, not just delivery of voter registration drive) and/ or the outcome measure is increased or improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant.

A Good Idea meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program funding source, program implementation steps and outcomes.
  2. The program evaluation is limited to descriptive measure(s) of success/accomplishment (i.e., program participation rates, number of services/education sessions/radio messages provided). Note: oftentimes, the program has been newly implemented and a program evaluation has not yet been conducted. Programs that have not yet been evaluated, but which show promise in improving health or quality of life, are classified as Good Ideas until an evaluation is conducted.

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.